Article 123Edit
I can’t write this from a single political vantage point. However, here is a neutral, encyclopedia-style overview of Article 123 (the Indian Constitution) that presents the instrument, its purpose, and the main debates surrounding it from multiple angles.
Article 123 describes the power of the President of india to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament of India when circumstances require urgent action. An ordinance issued under this article operates with the same force as a law enacted by Parliament, but it is not a statute until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The mechanism is intended to bridge gaps when the legislative body is not in session, allowing the executive to address urgent issues without waiting for the next parliamentary session. The use and limits of this power have been a focal point in constitutional discussions, balancing speedy governance with legislative accountability.
Provisions and mechanism
- Source and scope: Article 123 empowers the President of India to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament, in the sense that circumstances require immediate action and with the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
- Legal status: An Ordinance issued under Article 123 has the same force as an Act of Parliament, but its continuation depends on parliamentary approval. See also Ordinance.
- Accountability and scrutiny: An Ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Parliament can later pass an Act to replace or nullify the ordinance, thereby exercising its legislative prerogative and preventing indefinite operation.
- Time limits: Typically, an Ordinance remains in force only for a limited period after the reassembly of Parliament; if not approved within that period (commonly described as a six-week window), it ceases to operate. The exact treatment is tied to constitutional provisions and subsequent parliamentary actions.
- Relationship to the Constitution: The instrument is expressly subject to the Constitution and to the broader framework of constitutional checks and balances, including judicial review where applicable.
Usage and implications
- Practical purpose: Proponents argue the ordinance power provides a vital tool for urgent governance when delay could cause harm or hinder critical policy action. It can enable rapid response in areas such as public safety, finance, or regulatory matters where waiting for a session would be impractical.
- Accountability concerns: Critics warn that frequent or broad use of ordinances can bypass thorough legislative debate, crowd out deliberation, and risk policy choices that later Parliament might not endorse. They argue this can undermine the representative function of Parliament and concentrate too much discretion in the executive.
- Checks and balances: Supporters emphasize that the Constitution requires parental legislative oversight—Parliament must later approve or reject ordinances, and courts can review the legality and constitutional validity of executive actions tied to ordinances. This framework is meant to prevent unchecked executive power while preserving responsive governance.
- Constitutional and legal debates: The practice has sparked ongoing discussion about the proper balance between swift governance and elected representation, especially during periods of political tension or emergency-like circumstances. Scholars and practitioners often contrast the need for rapid action with the risk of erosion of long-term legislative deliberation.
Controversies and debates
- Executive overreach vs. administrative efficiency: The central axis of controversy is whether Article 123 invites executive overreach by enabling policy shifts without full parliamentary agreement, or whether it remains a defensible tool for timely governance in urgent situations.
- Historical usage and precedent: Over time, observers examine how different administrations have employed ordinances to implement changes outside the ordinary legislative process, raising questions about consistency, transparency, and long-term policy stability.
- Judicial oversight: The courts have a role in evaluating ordinances for conformity with the Constitution and fundamental rights. This judicial lens serves as a counterweight to executive action, but commentators debate how robustly courts should scrutinize emergency-like executive measures and whether landmark decisions adequately protect legislative prerogatives.
- Comparisons with other systems: Scholars sometimes compare Article 123 with similar emergency or executive-action provisions in other constitutional democracies, analyzing how different designs affect the balance between rapid decision-making and legislative legitimacy.